it will not surprise the experienced observer that batshit77 responds with approximately eleventy billion words and references to thermodynamics, ATP, Erwin Schrodinger, Michael behe, Steven Weinberg, entropy, Sam Harris, Jim Al-Khalili, David Bohm, special relativity, and the book of Romans.

it will not surprise the experienced observer that batshit77 responds with approximately eleventy billion words and references to thermodynamics, ATP, Erwin Schrodinger, Michael behe, Steven Weinberg, entropy, Sam Harris, Jim Al-Khalili, David Bohm, special relativity, and the book of Romans.

Now, that was prophetic.

Batshitcrazy77

Quote

As the bible itself states,,,

Quote

Romans 1:22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools,

No prophecy, Bornagain had already made those comments by the time I encountered it.

it will not surprise the experienced observer that batshit77 responds with approximately eleventy billion words and references to thermodynamics, ATP, Erwin Schrodinger, Michael behe, Steven Weinberg, entropy, Sam Harris, Jim Al-Khalili, David Bohm, special relativity, and the book of Romans.

This is like a university drinking game. Take a drink every time Batshitcrazy77 mentions quantum mechanics, the shroud of Turin, and Romans. If KF steps in and mentions Plato, Lewontin, cliffs, lemmings, red herrings, strawmen, patent, warrant, agit-prop.... damn, I’m drunk already. And if ET claims that there is no scientific theory of evolution, that ID is not incompatible with evolution, that our position can’t account for eukaryotes, ATP synthase, etc., that evolution is not testable, that we are willfully ignorant, cowardly ass munching faggots, we take another drink. There is not enough alcohol in the world for this game.

This is like a university drinking game. Take a drink every time Batshitcrazy77 mentions quantum mechanics, the shroud of Turin, and Romans. If KF steps in and mentions Plato, Lewontin, cliffs, lemmings, red herrings, strawmen, patent, warrant, agit-prop.... damn, I’m drunk already. And if ET claims that there is no scientific theory of evolution, that ID is not incompatible with evolution, that our position can’t account for eukaryotes, ATP synthase, etc., that evolution is not testable, that we are willfully ignorant, cowardly ass munching faggots, we take another drink. There is not enough alcohol in the world for this game.

You'd be in the ER less than eight pages into the first bornagain post.

This is like a university drinking game. Take a drink every time Batshitcrazy77 mentions quantum mechanics, the shroud of Turin, and Romans. If KF steps in and mentions Plato, Lewontin, cliffs, lemmings, red herrings, strawmen, patent, warrant, agit-prop.... damn, I’m drunk already. And if ET claims that there is no scientific theory of evolution, that ID is not incompatible with evolution, that our position can’t account for eukaryotes, ATP synthase, etc., that evolution is not testable, that we are willfully ignorant, cowardly ass munching faggots, we take another drink. There is not enough alcohol in the world for this game.

POTW

--------------"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night." Joe G

In making this point clear, it is first important to learn that many lines of evidence have now revealed that the biological form and/or shape of any particular organism is not reducible to the sequential information on DNA.

This isn’t exactly groundbreaking news. When I was at university, well over 40 years ago, we were taught that embryonic development and the subsequent end product were not determined by the DNA alone. And given that much that is taught st school was discovered many years earlier, I can only assume that this was well understood long before I was introduced to it.

41Hazel April 27, 2019 at 7:49 pmba, I, like most people here I imagine, do not read your posts very thoroughly or completely, if at all, for various reasons. I saw, in the first paragraph of 34, the sentence “Good theories do not change,” and I commented on that. Other than that point, I’ve paid no attention to whatever else you’ve written on this thread (which at one time was about quantum mechanics, as I recall.)

Quote

42Ed George April 27, 2019 at 8:32 pmHazel

Quote

ba, I, like most people here I imagine, do not read your posts very thoroughly or completely, if at all,

12Brother Brian April 28, 2019 at 8:58 amI have noticed that the frequency and intensity of claims that atheism (and more specifically Darwinism) are religions increased after the Dover decision where it was concluded that ID was just a repackaging of religious creationism. If I were a cynic, I might think that after failing to convince people that ID was a scientific theory on a par with evolutionary theory, that the strategy was changed to trying to convince people that evolution was a religion on a par with ID. Good luck with that.

52Hazel April 28, 2019 at 10:39 amba, are there any good scientific theories today, based on both your criteria: 1) that they are unlikely to change for the better in the future (how would we know that?), and 2) they are based on rigidly mathematical empirical testing?

Give an example, please.

Quote

53Ed George April 28, 2019 at 11:03 amHazel

Quote

Give an example, please.

And perhaps support it with several 500 word irrelevant quotes, links to some obscure YouTube videos and a couple bible verses.

A trained monkey could have called it. Que ET with a comment about me being stupider than a trained monkey.

That thread has been fun to follow. Batshitcrazy77 keeps claiming that any scientific theory that adjusts itself to accommodate new information is a bad theory. Does that mean that creationism, which adjusted itself to scientific creationism, and then ID, is a bad theory?

I notice the 20-year anniversary of the Columbine killings passed a week or so ago, and we haven't read anything from Barry about it. I think that either his real-world life is keeping him too busy, he has lost interest in the lost cause that is ID, or he has realised that it is crassly irrelevant to blame the theory of evolution for the actions of two psychopathic– no, that would never happen – he is either too busy or is losing interest in running UD.

--------------We no longer say: “Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.” We now say: “Another day since the time Darwinism was disproved.”-PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016

This is like a university drinking game. Take a drink every time Batshitcrazy77 mentions quantum mechanics, the shroud of Turin, and Romans. If KF steps in and mentions Plato, Lewontin, cliffs, lemmings, red herrings, strawmen, patent, warrant, agit-prop.... damn, I’m drunk already. And if ET claims that there is no scientific theory of evolution, that ID is not incompatible with evolution, that our position can’t account for eukaryotes, ATP synthase, etc., that evolution is not testable, that we are willfully ignorant, cowardly ass munching faggots, we take another drink. There is not enough alcohol in the world for this game.

POTW

They are just spreading the love.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

The UD News Desk’s latest post has me thinking. The multiverse is not only unscientific, it is positively anti-scientific. If there are an incomprehensibly vast (I believe some say even infinite, though that is hard to conceptualize) number of universes, then any being or phenomenon can be explained by “we just happen to live in […]

That kind of would defeat everything I’m being arguing for thus far would it not BB?

That would assume that I, or anyone, actually reads all of your posts. However, I do rememember you saying something about evolution not being a valid theory because it doesn’t have a robust mathematical model supporting it (which, of course it does).So, where is the robust mathematical model of Christ and his resurrection?